REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. T.A.N. PROPERTIES, INC., Respondent. [G.R. NO.
154953 : June 26, 2008]
“x x x.
Respondent Failed to
Prove
that the Land is Alienable and Disposable
Petitioner argues that anyone who applies for registration has
the burden of overcoming the presumption that the land forms part of the public
domain. Petitioner insists that respondent failed to prove that the
land is no longer part of the public domain.
The
well-entrenched rule is that all lands not appearing to be clearly of private dominion
presumably belong to the State.14 The onus to
overturn, by incontrovertible evidence, the presumption that the land subject
of an application for registration is alienable and disposable rests with the
applicant.15
In this case, respondent submitted two
certifications issued by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR). The 3 June 1997 Certification by
the Community Environment and Natural Resources Offices (CENRO), Batangas
City,16 certified that "lot 10705,
Cad-424, Sto. Tomas Cadastre situated at Barangay San Bartolome, Sto. Tomas,
Batangas with an area of 596,116 square meters falls within the ALIENABLE AND
DISPOSABLE ZONE under Project No. 30, Land Classification Map No. 582 certified
[on] 31 December 1925." The second certification17 in the form of a memorandum to the trial court, which was issued by the Regional
Technical Director, Forest Management Services of the DENR (FMS-DENR),
stated "that the subject area falls within an alienable and disposable
land, Project No. 30 of Sto. Tomas, Batangas certified on Dec. 31, 1925 per LC
No. 582."
The
certifications are not sufficient. DENR Administrative Order (DAO) No. 20,18 dated
30 May 1988, delineated the functions and authorities of the offices within
the DENR. Under DAO No. 20, series of 1988, the CENRO issues certificates of land classification status for areas below 50 hectares. The
Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Offices (PENRO) issues certificate of land classification status for lands
covering over 50 hectares. DAO No. 38,19 dated
19 April 1990, amended DAO No. 20, series of 1988. DAO No. 38, series
of 1990 retained the authority of the
CENRO to issue certificates of land classification status for areas below 50
hectares, as well as the authority
of the PENRO to issue certificates of land classification status for lands
covering over 50 hectares.20 In this case, respondent applied for
registration of Lot 10705-B. The area covered by Lot 10705-B is over 50
hectares (564,007 square meters). The CENRO certificate covered the entire Lot
10705 with an area of 596,116 square meters which, as per DAO No. 38, series of
1990, is beyond the authority of the
CENRO to certify as alienable and disposable.
The
Regional Technical Director, FMS-DENR, has no authority under DAO Nos. 20 and
38 to issue certificates of land classification.
Under DAO No. 20, the Regional Technical Director, FMS-DENR:
1. Issues original and renewal of
ordinary minor products (OM) permits except rattan;
2. Approves renewal of
resaw/mini-sawmill permits;
3. Approves renewal of special use
permits covering over five hectares for public infrastructure projects; andcralawlibrary
4. Issues renewal of certificates of
registration for logs, poles, piles, and lumber dealers.
Under DAO No. 38, the Regional
Technical Director, FMS-DENR:
1. Issues original and renewal of
ordinary minor [products] (OM) permits except rattan;
2. Issues renewal of certificate of
registration for logs, poles, and piles and lumber dealers;
3. Approves renewal of
resaw/mini-sawmill permits;
4. Issues public gratuitous permits for
20 to 50 cubic meters within calamity declared areas for public infrastructure
projects; andcralawlibrary
5. Approves original and renewal of
special use permits covering over five hectares for public infrastructure
projects.
Hence,
the certification issued by the Regional Technical Director, FMS-DENR, in the
form of a memorandum to the trial court, has no probative value.
Further, it is not enough for the PENRO
or CENRO to certify that a land is alienable and disposable. The applicant for
land registration must prove that the
DENR Secretary had approved the land classification and released the land of
the public domain as alienable and disposable, and that the land subject of the application for registration falls
within the approved area per verification through survey by the PENRO or CENRO.
In addition, the applicant for land registration must present a copy of the original classification approved by the
DENR Secretary and certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of the
official records.
These
facts must be established to prove that the land is alienable and disposable.
Respondent failed to do so because the certifications presented by respondent
do not, by themselves, prove that the land is alienable and disposable.
Only Torres, respondent's Operations
Manager, identified the certifications submitted by respondent. The government officials who issued the
certifications were not presented before the trial court to testify on their
contents. The trial court
should not have accepted the contents of the certifications as proof of the
facts stated therein. Even if the
certifications are presumed duly issued and admissible in evidence, they have
no probative value in establishing that the land is alienable and disposable.
Public
documents are defined under Section 19, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence as follows:
(a) The written official acts, or
records of the official acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and
tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign
country;
(b) Documents acknowledged before a
notary public except last wills and testaments; andcralawlibrary
(c) Public records, kept in the
Philippines, of private documents required by law to be entered therein.
Applying Section 24 of Rule 132, the record of public documents referred to
in Section 19(a), when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested
by the officer having legal custody of the record, or by his deputy x x x.
The CENRO is not the official repository or legal custodian of the issuances of
the DENR Secretary declaring public lands as alienable and disposable. The CENRO should have attached an
official publication21 of
the DENR Secretary's issuance declaring the land alienable and disposable.
Section
23, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence
provides:
Sec. 23. Public
documents as evidence. Documents consisting of entries in public records
made in the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence
of the facts stated therein. All other public documents are evidence, even
against a third person, of the fact which gave rise to their execution and of
the date of the latter.
The CENRO and Regional Technical
Director, FMS-DENR, certifications do not fall within the class of public
documents contemplated in the first sentence of Section 23 of Rule 132. The certifications do not reflect
"entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public
officer," such as entries made by the Civil Registrar22 in
the books of registries, or by a ship captain in the ship's logbook.23 The
certifications are not the certified copies or authenticated reproductions of
original official records in the legal custody of a government office. The
certifications are not even records of public documents.24 The certifications are conclusions
unsupported by adequate proof, and thus have no probative value.25 Certainly, the certifications cannot be
considered prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein.
The CENRO and Regional Technical
Director, FMS-DENR, certifications do not prove that Lot 10705-B falls within
the alienable and disposable land as proclaimed by the DENR Secretary. Such government certifications do not,
by their mere issuance, prove the facts stated therein.26 Such government certifications may fall
under the class of documents contemplated in the second sentence of Section 23
of Rule 132. As such, the certifications are prima facie evidence
of their due execution and date of issuance but they do not constitute prima
facie evidence of the facts stated therein.
The
Court has also ruled that a document or writing admitted as part of the
testimony of a witness does not constitute proof of the facts stated therein.27 Here,
Torres, a private individual and respondent's representative, identified the certifications but the government officials who issued the
certifications did not testify on the contents of the certifications. As such, the certifications cannot be
given probative value.28 The contents of the certifications are
hearsay because Torres was incompetent to testify on the veracity of the
contents of the certifications.29 Torres
did not prepare the certifications, he was not an officer of CENRO or FMS-DENR,
and he did not conduct any verification survey whether the land falls within
the area classified by the DENR Secretary as alienable and disposable.
Petitioner also points out the
discrepancy as to when the land allegedly became alienable and disposable. The
DENR Secretary certified that based on Land Classification Map No. 582, the
land became alienable and disposable on 31 December 1925. However, the
certificate on the blue print plan states that it became alienable and
disposable on 31 December 1985.
We agree with petitioner that while the
certifications submitted by
respondent show that under the Land Classification Map No. 582, the land became
alienable and disposable on 31 December 1925, the blue print plan states that it became alienable and disposable on
31 December 1985. Respondent alleged that "the blue print plan merely
serves to prove the precise location and the metes and bounds of the land
described therein x x x and does not in any way certify the nature and
classification of the land involved."30 It is true that the notation by a surveyor-geodetic engineer on
the survey plan that the land formed part of the alienable and disposable
land of the public domain is not
sufficient proof of the land's classification.31 However, respondent should have at
least presented proof that would explain
the discrepancy in the dates of classification. Marquez, LRA Records
Officer II, testified that the documents submitted to the court consisting of
the tracing cloth plan, the technical description of Lot 10705-B,
the approved subdivision plan, and
the Geodetic Engineer's certification
were faithful reproductions of the
original documents in the LRA office. He did not explain the discrepancy in the dates. Neither was the Geodetic Engineer presented to explain why the date of
classification on the blue print plan was different from the other certifications
submitted by Respondent.
X x x.”
